SSC 466 Mean Stress Assessment in Fatigue Analysis

NTIS # PB2013-
SSC-466
MEAN STRESS ASSESSMEN IN
FATIGUE ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
This document has been approved

For public release and sale; its
Distribution is unlimited
SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE
2013
Ship Structure Committee

RDML J.A. Servidio
U. S. Coast Guard Assistant Commandant,
Assistant Commandant for Prevention Policy
Co-Chair, Ship Structure Committee
RADM Thomas Eccles

Chief Engineer and Deputy Commander
For Naval Systems Engineering (SEA05)
Co-Chair, Ship Structure Committee
Mr. H. Paul Cojeen

Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
Mr. Todd Grove

Chief Technical Officer (CTO)
American Bureau of Shipping
Mr. Christopher McMahon

Director, Office of Ship Construction
Maritime Administration
Ms. Julie Gascon

Director Design, Equipment and Boating Safety,
Marine Safety,
Transport Canada
Mr. Kevin Baetsen

Director of Engineering
Military Sealift Command
Dr. Neil Pegg

Group Leader - Structural Mechanics
Defence Research & Development Canada - Atlantic
Mr. Jeffrey Lantz,

Commercial Regulations and Standards for the
Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety, Security
and Stewardship
Mr.
Deputy Assistant Commandant for Engineering and
Logistics
Mr. Eric C. Duncan

Director, Structural Integrity and Performance Division
Dr. John Pazik
Director, Ship Systems and Engineering Research
Division
SHIP STRUCTURE SUB-COMMITTEE

AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING (ABS)
Mr. Craig Bone
Mr. Phil Rynn
Mr. Tom Ingram
DEFENCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CANADA

ATLANTIC
Mr. Malcolm Smith
Dr. Layton Gilroy
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION (MARAD)

Mr. Chao Lin
Mr. Richard Sonnenschein
MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND (MSC)

Mr. Michael W. Touma
Mr. Jitesh Kerai
NAVY/ONR / NAVSEA/ NSWCCD

Mr. David Qualley / Dr. Paul Hess
Mr. Erik Rasmussen / Dr. Roshdy Barsoum
Mr. Nat Nappi, Jr.
Mr. Dean Schleicher
TRANSPORT CANADA
Mr. Ian Campbell
Mr. Bashir Ahmed Golam
Mr. Luc Tremblay
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD
SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE

ENGINEERS (SNAME)
Mr. Rick Ashcroft
Mr. Dave Helgerson
Mr. Alex Landsburg
Mr. Paul H. Miller
CAPT John Mauger

Mr. Jaideep Sirkar
Mr. Chris Cleary
Mr. Frank DeBord
1. Report No.
2. Government Accession No.
SSC-XXX
4. Title and Subtitle
Mean Stress Assessment in Fatigue Analysis and Design
3. Recipient's Catalog No.

5. Report Date
November 2012
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Authors
Yuen, B.K.; Koko, T.S.; Polezhayeva, H; Jiang, L.
8. Performing Organization Report

No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Martec Limited
1888 Brunswick Street, Suite 400
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3J 3J8
10. Work Unit No. (TRIAS)
11. Contract or Grant No.
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
13. Type of Report and Period

Covered
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract
The mean stress is an important component of loading history and fatigue of ship hull structural details. This is
especially true in welded details, where the tensile residual stress at a hot spot is very large and close to the yield
stress, which might reduce the fatigue life of structural components. However, there is a lack of commonality
between different approaches in fatigue analysis and design codes and standards when dealing with mean stress.
Therefore, the objectives of this work are to validate the models adopted in the various approaches, to seek to
harmonize these approaches across the codes and to develop an appropriate methodology for assessing the effects of
mean stress. These objectives were accomplished through a review the available data on the effects of mean stress
on fatigue strength and the analyses the available fatigue data in order to develop an appropriate methodology for
the assessment of the mean stress effects in fatigue analyses for marine applications.
17. Key Words

mean stress, fatigue models, residual stress, welded
details, ships, design codes and standards
19. Security Classif. of this report
18. Distribution Statement
20. Security Classif. of this page
21. No. of pages
22. Price
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
BACKGROUND
The mean stress is an important component of the loading history and fatigue of ship hull
structural details. When tensile, it increases the maximum stress in the load cycle and
reduces the fatigue life of structural components. The lack of commonality between
different approaches in fatigue analysis and design codes and standards when dealing
with mean stress makes it necessary to validate the models adopted in the various
approaches, and to seek to harmonize these approaches across the codes. However, in the
case of the combination of random and constant amplitude loading components, the
appropriate methodologies for assessing the effects of mean stress are lacking. A survey
carried out in 2003 by ISSC reported that 6 out of 8 major classification societies used a
mean stress correction factor. In the recently adopted Common Structural Rules for
Tankers and Bulk Carriers (IACS, 2005) mean stress corrections are implemented, albeit
in a very different form for tankers and bulk carriers respectively. A procedure for
considering mean stress was suggested recently in IACS documents by introducing an
equivalent stress, which allows residual welding stress and mean stress due to still water
loading to be taken into account. However, application of corrections and of equivalent
stress may be regarded only as an approximation since it is based on the simplified
assumption of combined cyclic stress with constant amplitude and mean stress.
A specific property of load sequences in marine applications is the combination of a
narrow banded random wave loading with slowly varying (or constant) loading providing
the source of mean stress. This means that the implied experimental procedure and
respective modelling of fatigue behaviour of the material should consider the effects of
mean stress in conjunction with realistic variable amplitude loading. An important
component of stress fields in a ship structure is residual welding stress. Typically, areas
of residual stress are superimposed with the stress concentration due to the geometry of
structural details. Static loads and occasionally relatively high wave loads may cause
partial relief (shakedown) of residual stress in stress concentration areas, changing the
local load ratio and thus affecting fatigue resistance. These effects should be assessed
based on the present knowledge and an experimental program, feasible within the
framework of the time and cost of the project. These are the reasons for development of
a procedure for fatigue analysis and design of marine structural components considering
effects of mean stress.
1.2
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The objective of this study is to review the available data on the effects of mean stress on
fatigue strength, to plan and carry out additional experiments on a structural steel or
steels if necessary, to analyze the results and to develop a methodology for assessment of
the mean stress effects in fatigue analyses for marine applications. While both crack
initiation and crack growth phases of fatigue analysis are of interest, the objective of this
study will be to concentrate on crack initiation.
1.3
ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT
The remainder of this document is organized as follows, presenting the literature review
on the mean stress effects on fatigue assessment, the development of an appropriate
fatigue model to account for the mean stress effects and the analysis of fatigue test data:
Chapter 2 presents an overview of the effect of mean stress on the fatigue strength
of small specimens and components under constant and variable amplitude
loading, and when overloads are applied before fatigue tests. Measurements of
relaxation of welding residual stresses and hot spot stresses in fatigue critical
locations are also discussed. A database of fatigue test results has been developed
and this chapter provides a summary of the database. A summary of mean stress
models is provided.
Chapter 3 presents the development of an appropriate fatigue model to account for
the mean stress effects. This chapter also includes an analysis of existing fatigue
test data using the Class Society and the proposed models.
Chapter 4 provides a summary of the work performed and conclusions reached.
Recommendations for future work are also provided in this chapter.
2.0
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1
INTRODUCTION
Lloyds Register (Polezhayeva, 2010) [1] has performed an extensive literature survey on
the effect of mean stress on fatigue strength on welded joints. Over 59 published
documents were reviewed in the report. Topics that were covered include:
Effect of mean stress on fatigue strength of small specimens and structural

components under constant and variable amplitude fatigue loading;
Effect of mean stress on fatigue strength of small specimens and structural
components under fatigue loading when an overload is applied before the fatigue
tests;
Measurements of relaxation of welding residual stress.
A summary of the review is presented in this chapter, along with reviews of recent
experimental investigations into fatigue life of small specimens and structural
components, conducted at Lloyd's Register (Polezhayeva, 2010) [2], and hot spot stresses
at fatigue critical locations due to static loads.
2.2
EFFECT OF MEAN STRESS ON FATIGUE STRENGTH OF SMALL SPECIMENS AND

COMPONENTS UNDER CONSTANT AND VARIABLE AMPLITUDE LOADING
Maddox (1982) [3] tested fillet welded joints in four steels with yield stresses ranging
from 332 to 727 MPa, under various applied stress ratios. Some specimens were stressrelieved. The specimen dimensions are provided in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The specimen dimensions in [3]
The specimens were tested axially under constant amplitude stress range and a number of
R-values, R = -, -1, 0, 0.5, 0.67 for as welded specimens and R = -1, 0.5, 0.67 for stress
relieved specimens. Experimental data and mean S-N curves are presented in Figure 2.
If one defines a fatigue enhancement factor (f) as the ratio of the fatigue strength for
partially or fully compressive fatigue cycles to the fatigue strength for fully tensile
fatigue cycles:
f = S R< 0 / S 0
(1)
where S 0 is the fatigue strength when the stress ratio is equal to 0 (entirely tensile fatigue
cycles) and S R <0 is the fatigue strength when the stress ratio is less than 0 (partly
compressive fatigue cycles), then the fatigue enhancement factor for specimens tested
under fully compressive cycles was 1.22. Tensile strength of the steel had no effect on
the fatigue strength of joints. Stress relief was only partially effective, with the result that
applied compressive stresses were still damaging. Stress relief had no effect on the
fatigue strength of the joint when it was subjected to tensile loading.
Figure 2: Fatigue test results in [3]
Maddox [4] carried out fatigue tests on longitudinal fillet welded specimens, as shown in
Figure 3, in Al-Zn-Mg alloy. Specimens were tested axially: Type 1 with R = 0, -1 and ; Type 2 with R = -1 and 0.25. Fatigue tests results are shown in Figure 4 for Type 1
specimens. Tests showed the fatigue enhancement factor for specimens tested under
fully compressive cycles was 1.57, compared with those tested under tensile and partly
compressive stress cycles.
Figure 3: Specimens tested in [4]
Figure 4: Fatigue test results for Type 1 specimens in [4]
Tilly (1985) [5] stated that under constant amplitude loading, data for pulsating
compression (compressive fatigue cycles) tend to be more scattered but the lower limit to
performance is a little better than for tension, as shown in Figure 5. Unlike pulsating
tension (tensile fatigue cycles), the rate of propagation decreases during the life but does
not decay to zero.
Figure 5: Fatigue test results in [5]
Figure 6 shows fatigue test data conducted with variable amplitude pulsating
compression, obtained under a Raleigh spectrum and an axle spectrum, which is the total
weight felt by the roadway for all wheels connected to a given axle of a wheeled vehicle.
In both cases, results were reasonably close to the performance predicted from pulsating
tension data but short of expectation based on constant amplitude pulsating compression
tests, although there were still higher fatigue lives under pulsating compression. Variable
amplitude pulsating compression, however, is not typical for ship structures.
Figure 6: Variable amplitude performance for pulsating compression in [5]
Gurney (1985) [6] carried out fatigue tests using specimens made from BS4360 Grade 50
Steel, as shown in Figure 7, under both constant and variable amplitude axial loading.
Both as-welded and stress relieved specimens were tested.
Figure 7: Specimens tested in [6,8-9]
The constant amplitude loading tests were carried out with stress ratios of R = 0 and R = 1, while the variable amplitude loading tests were carried out using various short
sequences and under a Raleigh spectrum. The constant amplitude fatigue tests results for
as welded specimens with S-N curves fitted with inverse slope of 3 are given in Figure 8.
Stress relief had virtually no effect on fatigue strength at R = 0 but improved strength by
about 25% at R = -1. The results suggested that for R = 0, as-welded or stress-relieved,
and for R = -1 as-welded, the whole of the stress range was damaging. But for R = -1,
stress-relieved, it appeared that only about 50% of the compressive part of the range was
damaging.
Figure 8: Constant amplitude fatigue tests results in [6]
Niemi (1987) [7] conducted two series of fatigue tests, one on butt welded specimens and
another on fillet welded knee joints under both constant and variable amplitude loading.
The variable amplitude loading was generated using the Markows matrix technique.
The material used was high tensile steel HSF 490 (yield stress of 492-496 MPa) in 5 and
8 mm thickness. The stress ratio varied between 0.01 and 0.75 and between -0.13 and
0.42 (for maximum stress in the cycle) for butt welded joints tested under constant
amplitude and variable amplitude loading, respectively. The stress ratio varied between
0.56 and 0.84 and between 0 and 0.55 (for maximum stress in the cycle) for fillet welded
knee joints tested under constant amplitude and variable amplitude loading, respectively.
No significant difference was found for constant and variable amplitude test results in
terms of equivalent stress in the latter. Also there was no difference between fatigue test
results for various stress ratios, possibly since all the mean stresses were tensile.
Gurney (1988) [8] carried out fatigue tests on longitudinal non-load-carrying fillet
welded edge attachments, as shown in Figure 7, under two basic spectra based upon the
two parameter Weibull distribution, as shown in Figure 9. The influence of stress ratio
varied markedly with the form of the loading spectrum. Under wide band loading
(variable mean stress) the fatigue life under spectra having the peak range at R = -1 was
typically 30% greater than when the peak range was at R = 0. However, with all cycles at
R = -1, the life was 17-57% less than when all cycles were at R = 0. Similarly under
programme loading the lives at R = -1 were again less than at R = 0.
Figure 9: Two basic spectra based upon the two parameter Weibull distribuion in [8]
Gurney (1992) [9] performed fatigue tests on as-welded and stress relieved joints made
from high tensile steel under both constant and variable amplitude axial loading. The
variable amplitude spectrum was based upon the two parameter Weibull distribution, as
shown in Figure 9. Specimen dimensions are shown Figure 7. The steel used was BS
4360-50D with a yield stress of 347-385 MPa and RQT 700 with a yield stress of 805
MPa.
Under constant amplitude pulsating tension (R = 0), as-welded and stress relieved
specimens had identical fatigue strengths. Under alternating (R = -1) loading, there was a
significant difference in fatigue strength between the as-welded and stress relieved
specimens. The fatigue enhancement factor was 1.41. For the RQT 700 specimens,
rather surprisingly the results at R = 0 are slightly higher than the corresponding results
for Grade 50 material; in fact the two results obtained at R = 0.5 lie almost exactly on the
S-N curve for Grade 50 at R = 0. The three specimens tested at higher stress ratios
showed a distinct reduction in strength.
Under variable amplitude loading, with the main stress cycle at R = 0 there was no
noticeable difference between the fatigue lives for as-welded and stress relieved joints.
With the main stress cycle at R = -1, stress relief gave a substantial increase in life (by a
factor of more than 2). This mirrors the corresponding increase in life that also occurs
under constant amplitude loading. Tests on as-welded joints of high tensile steel under
'stalactitic' loading (with all stresses pulsating downwards from a peak stress of 500 MPa)
led to a decrease in life by a factor of 5 compared with the life of specimens subjected to
the same spectrum at R = 0. The Miner's rule gave unconservative prediction for the
majority of the specimens, both as-welded and stress relieved, tested under wide band
loading, both at R = 0 and at R = -1, and under stalactitic loading.
Rrup and Petershagen (2000) [10] and Rrup and Fricke (2004) [11] tested longitudinal
stiffeners with non-load carrying fillet welds, as shown in Figure 10, under constant
amplitude and variable amplitude axial loading. The specimens were made of structural
steel S355 J2 G3, with 355 MPa minimum yield strength.
Figure 10: Fatigue test specimen in [10-11]
The constant amplitude loading tests were performed with the stress ratios shown in
Figure 11. The fatigue test results for R = - are shown in Figure 12, which also includes
the fitted S-N curve for various probabilities of survival (Ps). The fatigue enhancement
factor for fully compressive cycles was 1.46 as compared with fully tensile cycles. With
a constant crack initiation life for different stress ratios, the increase in total fatigue life
under fully compressive constant amplitude loading is caused by the crack propagation
phase.
Figure 11: Applied stress ratio in [11]
Figure 12: Fatigue tests results and fitted S-N curves for R = - in [11]
The random load sequence applied in [10] was log-linear distributed, corresponding to
the a long-term distribution of sea-way loads for ships. The load spectra are provided in
Figure 13. Due to residual tensile stresses, the crack initiation life was independent of the
stress ratio, but during the crack propagation phase, there were significant effects in case
of compressive mean stresses. It was concluded that the permissible nominal stress for
the investigated specimen under cyclic compressive loading could be at least up to 35%
higher than under cyclic tensile loading. Figure 14 presents the effect of stress ratio on
the fatigue enhancement factors for fatigue strength for both the constant and variable
amplitude loading applied in [10-11].
Figure 13: Load Spectra for tests under random loading in [10]
Figure 14: Improvement factors on fatigue strength for constant and variable amplitude loading in
[10-11]
Marquis and Mikkola (2001) [12] performed fatigue tests under load controlled three
point bending on I-beam type structures made from high strength steel (HTS390) in an
as-welded condition using constant amplitude loading and two spectra considered as
representative for ships. The specimen dimensions are given in Figure 15. The results
showed that the mean fatigue life for the block wise changing mean stress spectrum was
2.2 times greater than for the constant tensile mean stress spectrum, although the
maximum stress range was greater for the former spectrum. This confirmed the nondamaging effect of the compressive part of the cycle.
Figure 15: Specimen dimensions in [12]
Sonsino, Maddox and Hobbacher (2003) [13] investigated the cumulative fatigue damage
carried out on two types of welded joints (butt welds and transverse stiffeners, shown in
Figure 16), made of S335M, S690Q and S960Q structural steel, using a modified
Palmgren-Miner linear cumulative damage rule. The tests were carried out under both
constant and variable amplitude loading, with fully reversed (R = -1) and pulsating (R =
0) cycle. For the variable amplitude loading, both a base Gaussian spectrum and one in
which a Gaussian overload spectrum was superimposed onto the normal Gaussian
spectrum were applied, with an irregularity factor of I = 0.99, as shown in Figure 17. The
results showed that fatigue had not depended on the steel type, but only on the loading
mode. The mean stress did not influence the fatigue life, probably because of existing
high tensile residual stresses. For variable amplitude loading, the actual fatigue life lay
between 1/3 and 3 times the fatigue life predicted by the modified Palmgren-Miner linear
cumulative damage rule.
Figure 16: Dimensions of the welded specimens in [13]
Figure 17: Gaussian load spectrum with overloads applied in [13]
Kassner and Krebs (2007) [14] investigated the relation between the notch effect and the
mean stress effect on the fatigue strength of welded components. Experimental results of
small scale specimen tests showed a decreasing effect of mean stress as a consequence of
increasing notch effect. In fact, the fatigue strength of a welded joint with very high
notch effect can be independent of mean stress. In Figure 18, the enhancement factor
f(R), which describes the influence of the mean stress on the fatigue strength, is
represented as dependent on the notch effect for different welded joint types. As seen
from Figure 18, the effect of mean stress is insignificant for welded joints with high stress
concentration typical for ship structures.
Figure 18: Example of the influence of the notch effect on the mean stress dependence in different
welded joints after [14]
(1) Butt weld, 10x50 mm, S690, GTA;
(2) Butt weld, 20x50 mm, SM490;
(3) Cruciform joint, K-butt weld, grinding, S355;
(4) Butt weld, 12 x 100 mm, S355, GMA;
(5) Butt weld, 10 x 100 mm, S355M, GMA;
(6) Butt weld, 30 x 100 mm, S355, GMA;
(7) Transverse stiffener, 12x40 mm, fillet weld, S355;
(8) Transverse stiffener, 10x100 mm, K-butt weld; S355;
(9) Transverse stiffener 30 x 100 mm, K-butt weld, MAG
(10) T-joint, 15 mm/40 mm, S355
Hobbacher (2007) [15] provided the following guidance to account for the effect of stress
ratio (or mean stress effect), as shown in Table 1. If no reliable information on residual
stress is available, an enhancement factor f(R) = 1 is recommended. Other factors should
only be used if reliable information or estimations of the residual stress level are present.
Table 1: Recommendations for fatigue enhancement factors in [15]
Cases
Unwelded base material and wrought
products with negligible residual
stresses. Stress relieved welded
components.
Small scale thin-walled simple
structural elements containing short
welds. Parts or components
containing thermally cut edges.
Complex two- or three-dimensional
welded components. Components
with global residual stresses. Thick-
Fatigue Enhancement Factor (f(R))

f(R) = 1.6 for R < -1
f(R) = -0.4R + 1.2 for -1 R 0.5
f(R) = 1 for R>0.5
f(R) = 1.3 for R < -1
f(R) = -0.4R + 0.9 for -1 R -0.25
f(R) = 1 for R > -0.25
f(R) = 1 (no enhancement)
walled components. Normal case for

welded components and structures.
Heo et al (2007) [16] tested transverse fillet welded specimens, shown in Figure 19,
under seven strain controlled programs to investigate the effect of tensile and
compressive static stress in ship structures. The specimens were made from A Grade
steel. The load cases consisted of various combinations of high (HCF) and low (LCF)
cycle fatigue loading. Load cases 1 to 3 are shown in Figure 20. The results showed that
HCF cyclic loading with compressive mean stress does not contribute to fatigue damage.
Tensile mean stress induced an increase in fatigue damage, and compressive mean stress
had the opposite effect.
Figure 19: Geometry of welded cruciform joint in [16]
Figure 20: Load cases 1 to 3 for combined fatigue damage test in [16]
Bousseau and Millot (2008) [17] carried out fatigue tests under pulsating compression on
test specimens made from 100 HLES steel with T-shaped welded joints and/or
longitudinal attachments made from S355 NL steel. The tests demonstrated that
initiation can occur at high loading levels; however propagation remains limited and did
not exceed the plastic zone dimensions.
Gadouini et al (2008) [18] introduced artificial spherical defects at the surface of fatigue
samples made in C 35 steel and conducted tension and torsion fatigue tests in order to
determine the fatigue limit. The results showed that under tension, a positive mean stress
lowered the fatigue limit and vice versa. Under torsion, the mean stress did not influence
the fatigue limit when the value was lower than the yield stress of the material, as shown
in Figure 21. This result was similar to the behaviour of defect free materials. In
addition, several models were used to describe the influence of mean stress on the fatigue
limit. It was concluded that the local stress state should be considered at the tip of the
defect and the nonlinear kinematic hardening was necessary to describe local stress
relaxation when R 0.
Figure 21: Evolution of the fatigue limit versus mean stress under torsion loading in [18]
Polezhayeva (2010) [2] performed fatigue testing on both longitudinal fillet welded plate
specimens (Figure 22) and welded panels (Figure 23) representing a typical longitudinal
stiffener to transverse web connection in a ships hull. The specimens and panels were
manufactured from Lloyds Grade A steel plates with a specified minimum yield strength
of 235 MPa. The plate specimens were tested in both as-welded and stress relieved
conditions, while the panels were tested in as-welded conditions only. Both constant and
variable amplitude loading tests were conducted. The constant amplitude loading
consisted of fully tensile (R = 0.1), fully compressive (R = -) and alternating cycles (R =
-1), while the variable amplitude loading applied was based upon the Rayleigh
distribution close to those experienced in ships.
Figure 22: Plate specimen design in [2]
Figure 23: Reduced scale welded panel design in [2]
The constant and variable amplitude tests results for the plate specimens are shown in
Figure 24 and Figure 25, respectively. Under constant amplitude loading, for as-welded
specimens, there was very little scatter between the different modes of loading, likely due
to the influence of the tensile residual stresses at the weld toe. Heat treated specimens
showed fatigue behaviour directly affected by the applied mean stress. Stress-relief was
beneficial, but only if the applied loading was partly or fully compressive. Stressrelieved welded joints were unlikely to suffer significant fatigue damage if they
experienced only compressive applied stresses. The results from stress-relieved
specimens tested with R = 0.1 were seen to be essentially the same as those obtained from
the as-welded specimens. Under variable amplitude loading, specimens under fully
compressive load showed a better fatigue life. Apart from some of the results for fully
compressive loading, all the results agreed with the constant amplitude loading, which
would indicate that Miner's rule was accurate for the plate specimens and the loading
spectra investigated.
Figure 24: Constant amplitude fatigue tests results of the plate specimens in [2]
Figure 25: Variable amplitude fatigue tests results of the plate specimens in [2]
The fatigue test results for the welded panels are shown in Figure 26. The welded panels
showed a similar trend to the plate specimens under variable amplitude, i.e. the mean
stress has no effects except when the cycle was fully compressive. Under variable
amplitude loading, the test under predominantly compressive stresses gave a life about
50% longer than the test under predominantly tensile stresses. The residual stress
relaxation due to the applied fatigue loading was beneficial if the subsequent fatigue
loading produced effective stress ranges that were partly compressive.
Figure 26: Fatigue test results of the welded panels in [2]
Colin et al (2010) [19] conducted fatigue tests on cylindrical solid specimens made from
Aluminum 7075-T6 and stainless steel 304L under both strain control and load control
constant amplitude loading. The specimen geometry for stainless steel 304L is shown in
Figure 27. Effects of loading sequence, mean strain or stress, and prestraining were
investigated. The behaviour of aluminum was shown not to be affected by preloading,
whereas the behaviour of stainless steel is greatly influenced by prior loading. A fatigue
life parameter with both stress and strain terms was necessary to correlate the stainless
steel data with deformation history effects. The Smith-Watson-Topper parameter [20]
was shown to correlate most of the data reasonably well for both the stainless steel and
aluminum, as shown in Figure 28.
Figure 27: Specimen geometry for stainless steel 304L in [19]
Figure 28: SWT versus reversal to failure for: (a) stainless steel 304 and (b) aluminium 7075-T6 in
[19]
Aid et al (2011) [21] carried out fatigue tests under block loading and random loading on
tensile specimens made from aluminum alloy 6082 T 6. They also proposed a damaged
stress interaction damage rule to take into account the damage evolution at different load
levels and allow the effect of the loading sequence to be included. The results showed
that the proposed model allowed a better fatigue damage prediction than the widely used
Palmgren-Miner rule.
Based on the literature review in this section, the following conclusions can be drawn:
The mean stress effect is a function of the notch factor of the welded joint. There is a
decreasing effect of mean stress as a consequence of increasing the notch effect. In fact,
the fatigue strength of a welded joint with very high notch effect can be independent of
mean stress.
The compressive part of a fatigue cycle is only partly damaging, but down to a stress
ratio of R = 1 , the compressive part has no significant benefit on the fatigue strength.
This applies to the welded joints with severe stress concentrations and the presence of
high residual stresses, typical of ship details under constant and variable amplitude
fatigue tests .
On the other hand, enhancement of the fatigue strength was observed under fully
compressive applied stress ranges ( R = ). Under fully compressive applied ranges,
the enhancement factor on fatigue strength (f(R)) varied widely from 1.17 to 1.48.
There is not much data on the benefit of partly compressive cycles where the compressive
part of the cycle is larger than the tensile part (i.e. stress ratios between R = 1 and
R = ). However, there is an indication that there is an influence of mean stress under
ship related variable amplitude loading.
2.3
EFFECT OF MEAN STRESS ON FATIGUE STRENGTH OF SMALL SPECIMENS AND

COMPONENTS WHEN OVERLOAD IS APPLIED BEFORE FATIGUE TESTS
Static loading on a ship structure induced either by water pressure before service, such as
a tank test and ballasting, or by static cargo or ballast pressure during laden or ballast
voyages, can cause relatively high static mean hot spot stresses at welded joints,
compared with cyclic loadings induced by waves during service. Due to these static preloadings, the initial tensile residual stresses at welded joints and/or flame cut edges,
where fatigue strength is of concern(in most cases, where stress concentration occurs),
are expected to be shaken-down to a great extent by the elasto-plastic deformation
behaviour of the material. However, not every fatigue prone welded joint in ship is
subjected to tank test and ballasting static loading, so residual stress relaxation due to
these loads is not guaranteed. On the other hand, static loads due to cargo or ballast
pressure are unavoidable. Ship structural members are then exposed to cyclic loading
during their service. The effects of such shake-down on the mean stress effect on the
fatigue strength were reviewed in this section.
Hyundai Heavy Industries (2000) [22] investigated the effects of the mean stress on the
fatigue strength of preloaded specimens. Various types of specimens made from grade
A mild steel and grade AH32 high tensile steel were tested, as shown in Figure 29.
Table 2 shows the types of static pre-loads and mean stresses applied to the specimens.
Figure 29: Details of specimens in [22]
Table 2: Types of static pre-loads and mean stresses applied in [22]
Figure 30 shows some typical fatigue tests results in [22]. The results showed that for a
hot spot preload above yield (y), the fatigue strength decreased with an increase in the
hot spot mean stress of the fatigue cycles, such that the fatigue strength ratio varied
between 0.6-0.8 if the hot spot mean stress was between 0.5-1.5 y and below 0.6 if the
hot spot mean stress was above 1.5 y. Here, the fatigue strength ratio was calculated
with respect to fatigue strength obtained for alternating tests (zero mean stress). The
fatigue strength for alternating cycle tests increased almost linearly with increase in preload, if the hot spot pre-load was above 0.6 y, with the strength ratio reaching 1.4 for 1.6
y. Here, the fatigue strength ratio was calculated with respect to fatigue strength
obtained for alternating tests with no preload. This confirmed the occurrence of
relaxation of residual stress if a large initial stress was applied. The results suggest that if
the initial hot spot preload was below 0.6 y, there was no significant relaxation of the
residual stress. Although the results of the tests showed significant influence of initial
preload (or overload), the influence of the preload on largely or fully compressive fatigue
cycles was not investigated.
With pre-load
of 0.85 yield
With pre-load
of 0.85 yield
Figure 30: Typical fatigue test results in [22]
Lotsberg and Landet (2004) [23] tested two full scale models of a side longitudinal, as
shown in Figure 31, made from NVD36 steel under constant amplitude four-point
bending. Two fatigue load conditions were considered: ballast (tension at the hot spot, R
= 0.16) and loaded (compression at the hot spot, R = -). Before the start of fatigue
testing, the specimens were exposed to the load cycles representing the testing of ballast
tanks and the maximum load amplitudes from a 1-year storm. The fatigue life was
819,777 cycles for the ballast condition and 6,600,000 cycles for the loaded conditions,
which represented an enhancement factor of around 2 on fatigue strength.
Figure 31: Full scale models of side longitudinal tested under four-point bending in [23]
2.4
MEASUREMENTS OF RELAXATION OF WELDING RESIDUAL STRESS
Borgren and Lopez Martinez (1993) [24] reported spectrum fatigue testing and residual
stress measurements on non-load carrying fillet welded test specimens, similar to those
used by Maddox [25]. It was found that the residual stresses in the as-welded condition
were close to the yield stress of the material. These residual stresses were found to relax
very rapidly; within 8% of the total specimen life, 50% or more of the initial stresses
were relaxed.
Nitschke-Pagel (1994) [26] measured the relaxation of residual stress under fatigue load
for a transverse load-carrying butt weld (small-scale specimen) made from S690 steel.
The measurements are shown in Figure 32. Transverse residual stresses were reduced
almost completely after 105 load cycles. This was also true for longitudinal residual
stresses in weld toe.
Figure 32: Variation of residual stresses in the butt weld of S690 specimen in [26]
Blom (1995) [27] reported experiments in which residual stress measurements were
performed before cycling and at two different numbers of fatigue cycles, neither of which
was a single cycle. He found some appreciable relaxation between the two cycle counts
in some tests, although the largest relaxation (50 to 80% of the initial value) was recorded
at the first cycle count.
Lopez Martinez et al (1997) [28] published maps of residual stress distributions measured
by neutron diffraction for as-welded and TIG-dressed specimens with and without static
loading or spectrum fatigue cycling. They concluded that the static load caused
appreciable relaxation and that the variable amplitude fatigue loading showed the same
degree of relaxation as the static load case, suggesting that the fatigue relaxation occurred
early during the fatigue loading and was correlated to the occurrence of maximum load in
the spectrum.
Numerous researchers have reported significant relaxation and redistribution of residual

stresses on the first loading cycle, followed by minimal further relaxation on subsequent
cycles. Iida et al (1997) [29] and Iida and Takanashi (1998) [30] reported this result for
both R = 0 and R = 1 cycling of notched specimens. Typical results for the change in
the residual stress at a single point near the weld centre line with cycling are shown in
Figure 33. It should be noted that the magnitude of the decrease in the residual stress on
the first cycle corresponds with the magnitude of the applied static stress, indicating a
simple shakedown behaviour.
Figure 33: Change in longitudinal residual stress at a distance of 10 mm from the weld centre line
with application of static or fatigue loads in [30]
Takanashi et al (2000) [31] found a similar result for smooth butt welds and proposed a
simple mechanics model as an explanation. Typical changes in the residual stress profile
after fatigue cycling at two different stress amplitudes are shown in Figure 34. It should
be noted that both the tensile and compressive residual stresses are relaxed towards zero,
although the changes are more pronounced for the tensile stresses.
Figure 34: Change in longitudinal residual stress at a distance of 10 mm from the weld centre line
with application of static or fatigue loads in [31]
Hyundai Heavy Industries (2000) [22] measured the initial residual stress and residual
stress distribution after application of static loads with a magnitude of 0.5 y and 0.8 y in
the specimens shown in Figure 29. Numerical simulations of the residual stress
redistribution were also performed. Typical measured and calculated residual stresses
before and after the application of static loads are presented in Figure 35 and Figure 36.
Figure 35: Residual stress distribution at the edge of the main plate (Model 2) in [22]
Figure 36: Residual stress distribution at the edge on the upper part (Model 5) in [22]
Nitschke-Pagel and Wohlfahrt (2000) [32] measured a relaxation of residual stresses in

welded high strength steel in proportion to the magnitude of a single applied static tensile
load, but observed minimal changes with further cycling, and minimal changes with static
compressive loads.
Lachmann et al (2000) [33] confirmed the same general trends with corresponding
Barkhausen Noise measurements of residual stress.
Han and Shin (2002) [34] found a large change in residual stresses on the first load cycle
for low strength steel, but very small changes with further cycling.
Dattoma et al (2004) [35] developed a finite element model of residual stress relaxation
in weldments that predicted significant changes on the first cycle but no further changes
after 10 cycles.
Barsoum and Gustafsson (2007) [36] carried out constant and variable amplitude fatigue
testing on out-of plane gusset fillet welded high strength steel joints, in order to study the
influence of the residual stress on the fatigue strength. Residual stress measurements
were carried out close to the weld toe in order to study the relaxation due to variable
amplitude fatigue. The base material used to fabricate the welded joints was a cold
formed high strength steel, Domex 700 MC, with a minimum yield strength of 700 MPa
and a minimum tensile strength of 750 MPa. The weld fillers used were OK Autrod 12.51
(Conventional) and OK Tubrod 15.55 (LTT). Figure 37 illustrates the welded specimens.
Figure 37: Welded specimens in [36]
For the variable amplitude loading, two types of linear spectrum with an irregularity
factor I = 1 were used: the first one with low maximum stress and mean stress equal to
half of the maximum stress, the second one with high maximum stress and stress ratio
equal to zero. Residual stress measurements were carried out using the X-ray diffraction
technique. The objective of the residual stress measurements was to measure the residual
stress in the longitudinal direction of the main plate in the as-welded condition, after
50,000 cycles and after 600,000 cycles in order to study the residual stress relaxation due
to variable amplitude loading. The measurements were carried out 1-2 mm out from the
weld toe at all four weld toe locations on the specimen. Figure 38 shows the results from
the measurements of the residual stresses in the vicinity of the weld toe, using the second
load spectrum with severe relaxation of residual stress. The results showed that only
small residual stress relaxation was observed when the first spectrum was used. This was
due to the lower maximum stress levels in the first spectrum.
Figure 38: Residual stress relaxation due to variable amplitude fatigue loading using the second load
spectrum in [36]
Farajian-Sohi et al (2008) [37] studied the welding residual stress behaviour in welded
S235JRG2, S355J2G3 steel butt welded specimens under static and cyclic loading and
obtained the correlation between the relaxation and redistribution of the stress field and
material mechanical properties. The butt welded specimen is shown in Figure 39. The
residual stress measurements were performed using the X-ray diffraction technique.
Figure 39: Butt welded specimens in [37]
In cyclic loading the test was stopped after the first half cycle followed by measurement
of the residual stress and afterwards the cyclic loading was stopped after 10, 102, 103, 104
cycles and the X-ray measurement was performed. Cyclic loading of the specimens was
performed with and without applying mean stresses. It was observed that in the cases
where relaxation occurred, the first half cycle played a significant role. After subsequent
loading of the specimen until 1000 cycles, the transversal residual stress relaxed only
slightly compared with the relaxation in the first half cycle, see Figure 40.
Figure 40: Residual stress relaxation under cyclic loading in [37]
In Figure 41 the von Mises stress at the weld seam centreline is plotted as a function of
number of loading cycles for all cyclic loading conditions. The results showed that
regardless of what the initial residual stress was, a significant residual stress relaxation
with the same relaxation rate was observed in the first cycle for all the loading conditions
due to exceeding the monotonic yield strength value of the material. After the first
loading cycle it was observed that as long as the calculated von Mises value, which is a
function of residual stress, mean stress and loading stress, exceeded the monotonic yield
strength, the residual stress relaxation occurred but with a lower rate than that of the first
load cycle. When the von Mises stress was between the cyclic and monotonic yield
strength, no significant relaxation occurred and the residual stress remained stable.
Figure 41: Residual stress relaxation for different cyclic loading conditions in [37]
Farajian et al (2009) [38] studied the relaxation of surface and near surface welding
residual stresses in S690QL steel under static and cyclic loading. The butt welded
specimens (Figure 39) were loaded using constant amplitude cycles with and without
mean stress. Residual stress was measured using the X-ray diffraction technique. The
residual stresses after half a cycle and then in every 10n cycles were measured. Figure 42
shows the transverse and longitudinal residual stress relaxation under a 400 MPa applied
stress amplitude and stress ratio R = -1. The transverse residual stress relaxed
significantly at the first half cycle, with the relaxation more pronounced for larger stress
amplitudes. After half a cycle of loading the transverse residual stress did not change
significantly.
Figure 42: a) Transverse and b) longitudinal cyclic residual stress relaxation, R = -1, stress
amplitude = 400 MPa in [38]
Polezhayeva (2010) [2] performed fatigue testing on both longitudinal fillet welded plate
specimens (Figure 22) and welded panels (Figure 23). The specimens and panels were
manufactured from Lloyds Grade A steel plates with a specified minimum yield strength
of 235 MPa. Both constant and variable amplitude loading tests were conducted.
Residual stresses introduced by welding were measured.
In addition, some
measurements were also made after the application of fatigue loading, to determine the
extent to which the loading changed the original welding-induced residual stresses. The
centre-hole rosette gauge technique was used to measure the residual stresses.
Figure 43 shows the effect of cyclic loading on the residual stresses in the plate and panel
specimens. The results showed that the measured residual stress values, in the panels and
plate joints in the as-welded condition, were in the range 150 to 400 MPa, close to or
above yield. Post weld heat treatment reduced these values to about 20 MPa in the plate
specimens. There was strong evidence that the residual stress was partly relaxed (to
around 130 MPa) by application of one to ten cycles of fatigue loading. It was also
suggested that relaxation of residual stress is more pronounced under tensile loading.
Residual stress relaxation due to the applied fatigue loading was beneficial if the
subsequent fatigue loading produced stress ranges that were partly compressive.
Figure 43: Effect of cyclic loading on the residual stress in the plate and panel specimens in [2]: a)
Plate specimens; b) Welded panels
Based on the literature review in this and the previous sections, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
Although there is a large scatter for change in residual stress after the application of one
or few load cycles, the tendency is that the relaxation increases with the increase of the
applied hot spot stress range.
There is an average of 60% reduction in residual stress after the application of a hot spot
stress equal to the yield stress of the material, with a lower limit of 20% relaxation.
Conservatively, it could be assumed that there is no relaxation in the welding residual
stress if the applied positive hot spot stress is below 0.6 y, and a 20% relaxation if the
applied positive hot spot stress is equal to yield.
It is conservative to assume that there is no relaxation occurring under fully compressive
stress.
There is not enough data to analyse residual stress relaxation after the application of a
partly compressive hot spot stress cycle.
2.5
HOT SPOT STRESSES IN FATIGUE CRITICAL LOCATIONS
Structural members often undergo fairly large static loading before they enter service or
variable amplitude cyclic loading when they are in service. The combined effect of both
applied stress and high initial residual stress is expected to cause shakedown of the
residual stress. In order to identify the level of hot spot stresses at a ships fatigue critical
locations, and therefore have an understanding how residual welding stresses can relax
under cargo and ballast static loads, Polezhayeva (2010) [1] carried out the finite element
analyses for two tankers and a bulk carrier. A typical fine mesh of a fatigue critical
location is shown in Figure 44. The two load cases considered were a static cargo load
case and a static ballast load case.
Figure 44: Typical fine mesh of a fatigue critical location [1]
Typical finite element results are shown in Table 3. The results showed that during
various ship static load cases, the calculated static or applied mean hot spot stress was
equal to or exceeded the magnitude of the yield stress in both tension and compression at
various fatigue critical locations. This has to be considered in fatigue assessments. If, for
a given loading condition, the static hot spot stress is below negative yield and the
residual stress is assumed to be non-relaxed and equal to positive yield, the resulting
effective mean hot spot stress will be zero or negative. The fatigue stress range therefore
will be 50% or more in compression. Assuming the compressive part of cycle to have a
non-damaging effect, the fatigue stress range will be reduced. If, for given loading
condition, the static or applied mean hot spot stress is positive and above 0.6 y, then the
residual stress should be considered relaxed, according to the previous section, such that
for all following load cycles, the mean effective hot spot stress is the sum of the applied
hot spot stress and the relaxed residual stress.
Table 3: Finite element results for the bulk carrier in [1]
2.6
FATIGUE TESTS RESULTS DATABASE
Wherever possible, the fatigue tests results from the literature review are summarized in
the following tables, according to the major fatigue test parameters, which included the
specimen type, weld type, weld direction, heat treatment, material, load history, load
direction and stress ratio. In addition, the calculated mean S-N curve parameters, the
fatigue enhancement factor calculated with respect to that for R = 0 and the reference of
each test are also summarized in the tables wherever possible. The S-N curve parameters
summarized in the tables are C and m in the S-N curve equation:
m
N = C ( )
(2)
where
N = fatigue life (cycles)
= applied stress range (MPa)
C = S-N curve parameter (intercept) (cycles/MPam)
m = S-N curve parameter (slope) (dimensionless).
These tables provide a more convenient way to identify where fatigue tests data is lacking
and the effects of varying the parameters in the tests.
Table 4: Fatigue tests data for R = -infinity
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-infinity
1.371E+12
1.25
1982
Maddox
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-infinity
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Tilly
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-infinity
N/A
N/A
N/A
2004
Rorup et al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-infinity
3.614E+12
1.46
2000
Rorup et al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-infinity
1.140E+12
1.09
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-infinity
1.860E+13
3.17
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-infinity
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Tilly
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-infinity
2.480E+12
1.27
2010
Polezhayeva
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
-infinity
1.711E+13
1.28
2010
Polezhayeva
No
Treatment
Aluminium
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-infinity
4.120E+11
1.56
N/A
Maddox
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Longitudinal
attachment
Table 5: Fatigue tests data for R = -10
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
-10
1.711E+13
1.28
2010
Polezhayeva
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-3
N/A
N/A
N/A
2004
Rorup et al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-3
1.54E+12
1.10
2000
Rorup et al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-3
3.39E+15
1.88
2000
Rorup et al
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
8.23E+11
1.06
1982
Maddox
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
1.34E+12
1.05
2000
Rorup et al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
7.70E+11
1.12
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
7.82E+11
1.11
1988
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.00
1.21E+12
1.11
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
7.82E+11
1.00
1982
Maddox
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
1.81E+12
1.46
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
1.32E+12
N/A
1985
Gurney
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
2.72
4.33E+11
1.41
1992
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
2.72
4.33E+11
1.41
1992
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.00
3.28E+12
1.78
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Gurney
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
6.46E+14
1.08
2000
Rorup et al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1988
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.00
1.21E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1992
Gurney
Transverse
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
6.32E+12
1.04
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
5.17E+12
0.76
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
7.18E+12
0.98
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
1.89E+13
1.40
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
1.97E+14
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
1.24E+14
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
1.24E+14
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
4.21E+14
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
4.68E+14
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
6.71E+14
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.25
1.04E+15
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
1.56E+14
1.34
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
4.28E+14
1.20
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
6.49E+13
0.91
2003
Sonsino et
al
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Transverse
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
2.26E+14
1.43
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
1.51E+15
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
8.31E+15
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
3.75E+15
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
1.48E+16
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
2.14E+15
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
6.76E+15
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
-1
3.5
1.67E+15
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.25
1.48E+13
1.05
2003
Sonsino et
al
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.25
4.27E+13
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.25
4.60E+14
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.25
3.71E+14
0.93
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.25
3.44E+14
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.25
9.80E+14
0.88
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.25
1.48E+15
0.98
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.5
2.18E+14
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.5
9.06E+13
1.03
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.5
2.43E+14
1.03
2003
Sonsino et
al
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Transverse
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
Butt welded
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.5
3.19E+15
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.5
3.14E+15
0.94
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.5
2.22E+15
N/A
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.5
3.57E+15
0.94
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.5
3.63E+15
0.67
2003
Sonsino et
al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
-1
3.00
8.076E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
Aluminium
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
1.08E+11
1.00
N/A
Maddox
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
Aluminium
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maddox
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Table 8: Fatigue tests data for R = -0.33
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
-0.33
N/A
N/A
N/A
2004
Rorup et al
Table 9: Fatigue tests data for R = 0
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
6.94E+11
1.00
1982
Maddox
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
N/A
N/A
N/A
2004
Rorup et al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
1.16E+12
1.00
2000
Rorup et al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
5.48E+11
1.00
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
5.68E+11
1.00
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
5.68E+11
1.00
1988
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
2.62
1.01E+11
1.00
1992
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
5.86E+11
1.00
1985
Gurney
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
3.00
5.68E+11
1.00
1992
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
3.65
N/A
N/A
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
5.12E+14
1.00
2000
Rorup et al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
N/A
N/A
N/A
1985
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
N/A
N/A
N/A
1988
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
N/A
N/A
N/A
1992
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
3.00
1.21E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
N/A
N/A
N/A
1992
Gurney
Transverse
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
3.25
5.54E+12
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
3.25
1.27E+13
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
3.25
7.64E+12
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
3.25
6.32E+12
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
3.5
5.57E+13
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
3.5
2.26E+14
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
3.5
9.06E+13
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
3.5
6.49E+13
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
3.25
2.07E+13
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
3.25
1.27E+13
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
3.25
4.27E+13
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
3.25
4.76E+14
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
3.25
1.46E+15
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Transverse
attachment
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
3.25
1.59E+15
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
3.5
8.27E+13
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
3.5
2.18E+14
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
ThermoMechanically
Treated
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
3.5
3.93E+15
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Transverse
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
3.5
4.37E+15
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Butt welded
Water
Quenched
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
3.5
1.45E+16
1.00
2003
Sonsino et
al
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
Aluminium
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
1.08E+11
1.00
N/A
Maddox
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Table 10: Fatigue tests data for R = 0.1
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
0.1
3.00
8.77E+11
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
0.1
3.00
5.84E+11
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
0.1
3.00
8.076E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Bending
0.1
3.00
8.076E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
Aluminium
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
0.25
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maddox
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
0.5
6.94E+11
1.00
1982
Maddox
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
0.5
2.82
2.23E+11
0.99
1992
Gurney
Longitudinal
attachment
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
0.5
7.82E+11
1.00
1982
Maddox
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
0.67
6.94E+11
1.00
1982
Maddox
Stress
Relieved
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
0.67
7.82E+11
1.00
1982
Maddox
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
Longitudinal
attachment
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Stress
Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Axial
0.75
N/A
N/A
N/A
1992
Gurney
Table 15: Fatigue tests data for R = Other
Stress Ratio
S-N Curve
Slope (m)
S-N Curve
Intercept (C)
m
(cycles/MPa )
f(R)
Year
Author
Axial
Variable
2.22
8.36E+09
N/A
1992
Gurney
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
N/A
N/A
N/A
1992
Gurney
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
3.00
1.21E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
3.00
1.21E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
3.00
1.21E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Axial
Stalactitic
Constant
tensile mean
stress +20
MPa
Constant
compressive
mean stress 20 MPa
Constant
tensile max
stress +40
MPa
Constant
tensile max
stress +20
MPa
3.00
1.21E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
Predominantly
tensile stress
3.00
8.076E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Variable
Amplitude
Bending
Predominantly
compressive
stress
3.00
8.076E+12
1.00
2010
Polezhayeva
Specimen
Type
Heat
Treatment
Material
Load
History
Loading
Mode
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Constant
Amplitude
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
High
Strength
Steel
Longitudinal
attachment
No
Treatment
Longitudinal
attachment
2.7
MEAN STRESS MODELS
Fatigue life is dependent on the ratio of the mean stress to alternating stress in the
fatigue cycles. Three of the earliest simple mean stress models for assessing the mean
stress effect [45] are summarized in Table 16. These models calculate an equivalent
stress in terms of the applied alternating stress, the applied mean stress and the yield
strength or the ultimate strength of the material. The earliest model, the Gerber
model, does not distinguish between compressive and tensile mean stress. The
Goodman model is the most commonly used, which typically results in conservative
estimates and provides a good fit of the fatigue tests on metals with low-ductility.
The Soderberg model is the most conservative and often gives results similar to the
Goodman model.
Table 16: Three of the earliest simple mean stress models
Model
Gerber
(1874)
Equivalent
Stress
Formula
eq =
a

1 m
u
Goodman
(1899)
eq =
Soderberg
(1930)
eq =
eq = equivalent stress
m = mean stress
1 m
u
1 m
y
Remarks
Does not distinguish between
compressive and tensile mean
stress
Most commonly used, typically
results in conservative estimates,
and provides good fit of fatigue
tests on metals with low-ductility
Most conservative model, often
similar to Goodman
a = applied alternating stress

y = yield strength
u = ultimate strength
Figure 45 and Figure 46 compare the models using HY 80 steel and WT 300 steel,
respectively. It can be seen that the differences between the Goodman and the
Soderberg models are insignificant for high-strength steel, or when y u .
Figure 45: Comparison of three simple mean stress models using HY 80 steel
Figure 46: Comparison of three simple mean stress models using WT 300 steel
Further experimental data for structural materials given by Heywood, 1962; Frost et
al, 1974; Serensen et al.,1975; Reemsnyder,1995, etc. [46] demonstrated the diversity
of fatigue behavior of materials which Goodmans formula was not capable of
predicting. A series of proposals were developed that were applicable to particular
materials. Heywood suggested a correction to the Goodmans equation:
m
eq + ( u eq )
u
a = 1
(3)
where = ( m / 3 u )(2 + m / 3 u ) for steel
= ( m / u ) / 1 + (log N o u / 2200)4 for aluminum

N o = Number of cycles corresponding to fatigue limit
Other simple mean stress models include the Morrow and SWT (Smith, Watson,
Tupper) models based on strain-life approach to fatigue design:
max a = constant = ( a a )R = 1
(4)
and the Walker model:

1 w
1 R
eq = a
(5)
The simple mean stress models presented above apply to non-welded structures only.
In welded structures, it is generally accepted that the tensile residual stresses along
weld toes reach the yield level and hence, fatigue stresses cycle downward from yield.
In addition, compressive applied stress cycles are considered to be partly damaging,
with design codes allowing for the reduction in the compressive portion of the applied
stress range. Furthermore, S-N design curves are independent of the mean stress.
Due to high residual stresses at welds (in the order of y ), fatigue stresses cycle
downward from y , regardless of the mean stress value, as shown in Figure 47.
Recall the SWT model states that:
eq =
f (stress range, maximum stress)
(6)
In welded structures, max = y , regardless of mean stress. Therefore, fatigue in

welded structures with high residual stresses is dependent only on the stress range.
Figure 47: Effect of tensile residual stress on applied stress range
Various design codes consider the mean stress effects in welded structures. The
Health and Safety Executive Guidance states that the Effective stress range = Tensile
range + 0.6 Compressive range, where the tensile range is equal to the yield stress, as
shown in Figure 48.
yield
Stress range
(tensile)
Tension
Stress range
(compressive)
Compression
Mean
stress
Zero
level
Figure 48: Components of a fatigue stress cycle
DNVs RP C203 & CN 30.7 [47] allow for reductions in stress range similar to the
HSE approach. However, the level of reduction depends on the magnitude of residual
stresses, as shown in Figure 49. For base material, not significantly affected by
residual stresses, the reduction factor in stress range, f m , is given by:
fm =
t + 0.6 c
t + c
(7)
For welded material with residual stresses relieved by high tensile stresses due to
external loading:
fm =
t + 0.7 c
t + c
(8)
where t = mean +
and c = mean
.
2
2
Figure 49: Reduction in stress range according to DNVs RP C203 & CN 30.7
However, Lotsberg [48] found the above reduction factor to be non-conservative and
suggested the reduction in the compressive range to be increased to 0.8, such that:
fm =
t + 0.8 c
t + c
(9)
It is stated in the ABS guidance notes [49] that if it can be conclusively established
that the detail under consideration is always subject to a mean stress of m , the total
cumulative damage D is to be adjusted by a factor k ms .
k ms
s4
a factor for mean stress effect, which is
(10)
1.0
for m > s 4 / 2
0.85 + 0.3 m / s4
for s 4 / 2 m s4 / 2
0.7
for m < s4 / 2
long-term stress range corresponding to the representative probability

level of 10-4.
3.0
DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROPRIATE FATIGUE MODEL
3.1
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FATIGUE MODEL
The effect of mean stress on fatigue strength of welded small specimens and structural
components under constant and variable amplitude fatigue loading has been reviewed
in this work. Based on the literature review the following conclusions can be drawn:
The compressive part of a fatigue cycle is only partly damaging, but down to a stress
ratio of R = 1 , the compressive part has no significant benefit on the fatigue
strength.
This conclusion applies to the welded joints with severe stress
concentrations typical of ship details under constant and variable amplitude fatigue
loading.
Under fully compressive applied stress range, the enhancement factor on fatigue
strength (f(R)) varied widely from 1.17 to 1.48. Based on the current investigation
and literature search, the enhancement factor on fatigue can be conservatively
assumed to be 1.2 for fully compressive cycles.
There is not much data on the benefit of partly compressive cycles where the
compressive part of the cycle is larger than the tensile part (i.e. stress ratios between
R = 1 and R = ). However, there is an indication that the mean stress influences
the fatigue strength of welded joints under variable amplitude loading typical for
ships. Therefore, it is proposed to use linear interpolation for partly compressive
cycles: The fatigue enhancement factor increases from 1.0 for R = 1 (50%
compression) to 1.2 for R = (100% compression) in the loading history. The
proposed enhancement factor on fatigue strength, to be used for simplified fatigue
assessments, is given by:
f ( Rc ) =
=
=
Rc
=
=
1.0
R 0 .5
1.0 + 0.2 c
0 .5
1.2
for Rc < 0.5
for 0.5 Rc < 1

for 1 Rc
the fraction of the stress range that is compressive

0 min
(11)
3.2
ANALYSES OF FATIGUE TEST DATA
In welded details, the tensile residual stress at a hot spot is very large and close to the
yield stress. Therefore, the actual stresses acting in the vicinity of hot spot are
considered to be fluctuating downward from the yield stress irrespective of the mean
stress. If a hot spot region is subjected to a tensile stress, which causes local yielding
at the hot spot region, the residual stress would be reduced. On the other hand, the
compressive part of a fatigue cycle is assumed to be partly damaging, which means a
fatigue cycle that is partly compressive is less damaging than one that is entirely
tensile. This so-called mean stress effect on the compressive part of the fatigue cycle
can be modelled using a mean stress correction factor ( g m ) to modify the nominal
applied stress range used in the SN curve:
N m = C ( g m )
(12)
where g m is the mean stress correction factor, N m is the fatigue life with the mean
stress effect taken into account, is the applied stress range and C and m are the
SN curve constants. In other words, the fatigue life with the mean stress effect taken
into account is determined from the SN curve using the mean stress corrected applied
stress range. The modelling of the mean stress effect using the mean stress correction
factor is illustrated in Figure 50.
g m
Nm
Figure 50: Illustration of the Modelling of the Mean Stress Effect using the Mean Stress
Correction Factor
The fatigue test results from various sources [2, 3, 6, 8, 10] were analyzed to compare
the effectiveness of the DNV [47], Lotsberg [48], ABS [49] and the proposed [1]
models in predicting the mean stress correction factor under both constant amplitude
and variable amplitude loading. The mean stress correction factor can be calculated
from the above models as follows:
g m = f m for the DNV and Lotsberg models,
1m
g m = (k ms )
for the ABS model,
gm = 1
for the proposed model.
f ( R)
Figure 51 and Figure 52 plot the predicted mean stress correction factors against
experimental mean stress correction factors. The solid line indicates where
predicted factor is equal to the experimental factor, such that predictions that
above the line are conservative. The dashed lines indicate the scatter band for
prediction within which the predicted fatigue life is within a factor of two of
experimental fatigue life.
the
the
are
the
the
Figure 51 plots the results for constant amplitude loading. It can be seen that the
DNV predictions were unconservative in most of the tests. Still, most of the
predictions stayed within the scatter band. Meanwhile, the Lotsbergs modification to
the DNV model resulted in more conservative predictions and brought all the
predictions inside the scatter band. The ABS predictions were even more
conservative than the Lotsberg predictions. The ABS predictions were mostly
conservative, especially for the fully compressive fatigue cycles. Lastly, the proposed
model predictions were the most conservative, especially for the alternating stress
cycles ( R = 1 ), while having all the predictions inside the scatter band.
(a) DNV [47]
(b) Lotsberg [48]
(c) ABS [49]
(d) Proposed [1]
Figure 51: Comparison of the Predicted to the Experimental Mean Stress Correction Factors
under Constant Amplitude Loading
Figure 52 plots the results for variable amplitude loading. Equivalent stresses were
calculated in order to be used in the models. The equivalent stresses ( eq ) were
based on the Miner linear damage rule and given by:
eq
i m ni
=
ni
(13)
where ni is the number of cycles at stress range i in the applied variable amplitude
loading.
It can be seen that both the DNV and Lotsberg predictions were mostly
unconservative but stayed inside the scatter band. The Lotsberg predictions were
again more conservative than the DNV predictions. Thus, these test data further
validate the Lotsbergs modification to the DNV model. The ABS predictions were
again more conservative than the Lotsberg predictions. Lastly, the proposed
predictions were again the most conservative and had all the predictions inside the
scatter band.
(a) DNV [47]
(b) Lotsberg [48]
(c) ABS [49]
(d) Proposed [1]
Figure 52: Comparison of the Predicted to the Experimental Mean Stress Correction Factors
under Variable Amplitude Loading
3.3
CASE STUDY
To further compare the above fatigue models, the DNV, the Lotsberg, the ABS and
the proposed models were used to perform a fatigue analysis of a test case. This test
case involved a typical naval vessel subjected to a spectral loading condition. In the
fatigue analysis, the response RAOs and the input wave spectra were combined with
the hot pot stresses evaluated for unit panel load cases. The response RAOs were
obtained through a hydrodynamics analysis using 800 panels on the wet surface of the
ship hull. The hot spot stresses due to the unit panel pressure load cases were
generated using a top-down approach, in which a global finite element analysis was
first conducted using a model shown in Figure 53 and the displacement results from
global analysis were then prescribed to a detailed local model (Figure 54) to obtain
more accurate local stresses.
In order to reveal the influence of the mean stress levels on the predicted fatigue life,
four different mean stress values were considered, including negative, zero and
positive mean stresses as indicated in Table 17. As expected all mean stress models
predicted shorter fatigue lives with the increase of the mean stress level. This trend is
due to the modification to the compressive part of the fatigue cycle. When the mean
stress is further increased so that the fatigue cycle is predominantly tensile, all mean
stress correction models produced very similar results as indicated in the last column
in Table 17. The results also showed that the proposed model predicted the shortest
fatigue initiation lives and therefore was the most conservative, while the DNV and
the Lotsberg models were the least conservative.
Figure 53: Global Finite Element Model of a Typical Naval Vessel used in the Case Study
Hot Spot
Figure 54: Local Finite Element Model of the Hot Spot used in the Case Study
Table 17: Fatigue Life Predicted by Different Mean Stress Models for Various Mean Stress
Levels
Fatigue Life for Initiation (hours)

mean =
mean =
mean =
mean =
Model
-3.93 MPa
0.00 MPa
4.00 MPa
21.07 MPa
DNV [47]
2.278297105 1.877439105 1.551010105 1.171646105
Lotsberg [48] 1.785207105 1.581323105 1.398415105 1.165387105
ABS [49]
1.448191105 1.356008105 1.272397105 1.159090105
Proposed [1] 1.410285105 1.152420105 1.152420105 1.152420105
4.0
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The mean stress is an important component of loading history and fatigue of ship hull
structural details. This is especially true in welded details, where tensile residual
stress at a hot spot is very large and close to the yield stress, which might reduce the
fatigue life of structural components. However, there is a lack of commonality
between different approaches in fatigue analysis and design codes and standards when
dealing with mean stress. Therefore, the objectives of this work were to validate the
models adopted in the various approaches, to seek to harmonize these approaches
across the codes and to develop an appropriate methodology for assessing the effects
of mean stress. These objectives were accomplished through a review the available
data on the effects of mean stress on fatigue strength and the analyses the available
fatigue data in order to develop an appropriate methodology for the assessment of the
mean stress effects in fatigue analysis for marine applications. The following
conclusions are drawn from [1] and the present work:
1. In welded details, tensile residual stress at a hot spot is very large and close to
the yield stress. The compressive part of a fatigue cycle is only partly
damaging, but down to a stress ratio of R = 1 , the compressive part provides
no significant benefit to the fatigue strength. Under a fully compressive
applied stress range, the enhancement factor on fatigue strength varied widely
from 1.17 to 1.48. There is not much data on the benefit of partly compressive
cycles where the compressive part of the cycle is larger than the tensile part
(i.e. stress ratios between R = 1 and R = ), as shown by the lack of entries
in the fatigue test database. However there is an indication that the mean
stress influences the fatigue strength of welded joints under variable amplitude
loading typical for ships.
2. Static loading on a ship structure, induced either by water pressure before
service such as a tank test and ballasting, or by static cargo or ballast pressure
during laden or ballast voyages, cause relatively high static mean hot spot
stresses at welded joints, compared with cyclic loadings induced by waves
during service. Due to these static pre-loadings, the initial tensile residual
stresses at welded joints and/or flame cut edges, where fatigue strength is of
concern(in most cases, where stress concentration occurs), are expected to be
shaken-down to a great extent by the elasto-plastic deformation behaviour of
the material. However, not every fatigue prone welded joint in ship is
subjected to tank test and ballasting static loading, so residual stress relaxation
due to these loads is not guaranteed. On the other hand, static loads due to
cargo or ballast pressure are unavoidable.
3. The literature review revealed that initial residual stress relaxation occurs
mostly during the application of first half cycle of positive stress. According
to the limited experimental data, the relaxation of residual stress is negligible
if the initial (static) applied positive hot spot stress is below 0.6 y . Analysis
of experimental data showed that the average reduction in residual stress is
60%, with a lower limit of reduction of 20%, after an application of a hot spot
stress equal to yield stress of material. Based on the literature review, it is

conservative to assume that no relaxation occurs after application of fully
compressive stresses. There is not enough data to analyse residual stress
relaxation after the application of partly compressive stress cycles.
4. A new fatigue model is proposed based on the current investigation and
literature search. It is assumed in this model that there is no fatigue
enhancement when the compressive part of the fatigue cycle is smaller than
the tensile part (i.e. when R > 1 ). The fatigue enhancement factor is
proposed in this model to increase from 1.0 for R = 1 (50% compression) to
1.2 for R = (100% compression) in the loading history. It was shown that
the proposed model is more conservative at predicting the mean stress effect
than three different Class Society models, when compared to fatigue test
results from various sources.
4.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations for future work:

1. Investigate the benefit of partly compressive cycles where the stress ratio is
between R = 1 and R = and fatigue data are lacking.
2. Develop a model for residual stress relaxation as a function of the applied
stress range, stress ratio and initial residual stress.
5.0
REFERENCE
[1]
Polezhayeva, H. Literature Review on Mean Stress Effect on Fatigue Strength

of Welded Joints. MPD/10/06, Lloyds Register, November 2010.
[2]
Polezhayeva, H. Fatigue Testing of Welded Panels. MPD/10/05, Lloyds

Register, November 2010.
[3]
Maddox, S.J. Influence of Tensile Residual Stresses on the Fatigue

Behaviour of Welded Joints in Steel. Residual Stress Effects in Fatigue,
ASTM STP 776 (1982): 63-96.
[4]
Maddox, S.J. The Influence of Residual Stress on the Fatigue Behaviour of

Al-Zn-Mg Alloy Fillet Welds. University of Southampton.
[5]
Tilly, G.P.
Fatigue Review.
Fatigue of Land-Based Structures.
International Journal of Fatigue, Vol. 7 No. 2 (1985): 67-78.
[6]
Gurney, T.R. Fatigue Tests on Fillet Welded Joints under Variable

Amplitude Loading. TWI Research Report, No. 293/1985 (1985).
[7]
Niemi, E.J. Fatigue Tests on Butt and Fillet Welded Joints under Variable
Amplitude Loading. Fatigue of Welded Constructions, (April 1985).
[8]
Gurney, T.R. Fatigue Tests on Fillet Welded Joints in Steel under Simulated
Wide Band Type Loading. TWI Research Report, No. 365/1988 (1988).
[9]
Gurney, T.R. The Influence of Mean and Residual Stresses on Fatigue

Strength of Welded Joints under Variable Amplitude Loading Some
Exploratory Tests. TWI Research Report, No. 464/1992 (1992).
[10]
Rrup, J. and Petershagen, H. The Effect of Compression Mean Stresses on

the Fatigue Strength of Welded Structures. Welding in the World, Vol. 44, 5
(2000).
[11]
Rrup, J. and Fricke, W. Mean Compressive Stresses Experimental and

Theoretical Investigations into the Influence on the Fatigue Strength of
Welded Structures. Doc. XIII-2007-04 (March 2004).
[12]
Marquis, G.B. and Mikkola, T.P.J. Effect of Mean Stress Changes on the
Fatigue Strength of Spectrum Loaded Welds. Practical Design of Ships and
Other Floating Structures Proceedings, (2001).
[13]
Sonsino, C.M., Maddox, S.J. and Hobbacher, A. Fatigue Life Assessment of

Welded Joints under Variable Amplitude Loading State of Present
Knowledge and Recommendations for Fatigue Design Regulations. (2003):
87-102.
[14]
Kassner, M. and Krebs, J. Influence of Welding Residual Stresses and Notch

Effect on Fatigue Data for Welded Joints and Components. International
Institute of Welding, XV-1255r1-07, XIII-2171r1-07 (2007).
[15]
Hobbacher, A. Recommendations for Fatigue Design of Welded Joints and

Components. IIW-XIII/XV-1254r1-07 (May 2007).
[16]
Heo, J-H., Kang, J-K, Kim, K-S and Urm, H-S. A Study on the Fatigue
under Combined Tensile and Compressive Mean Stresses in Ship Structure.
PRADS (2007).
[17]
Bousseau, M. and Millot, T. Initiation and Propagation of Cracks in Welded

Joints Subject to Compression Stress. Doc.XIII-2237-08 (2008).
[18]
Gadouini, H., Nadot, Y. and Rebours, C. Influence of Mean Stress on the

Multiaxial Fatigue Behaviour of Defective Materials. International Journal
of Fatigue, Vol. 30 (2008): 1623-1633.
[19]
Colin, J., Fatemi, A. and Taheri, S. Fatigue Behaviour of Stainless Steel

304L Including Strain Hardening, Prestraining, and Mean Stress Effects.
Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology, Vol. 132 (April 2008):
021008-1-021008-13.
[20]
Smith, K.N., Watson, P. and Topper, T.H. A Stress-Strain Function for the
Fatigue of Metals. J. Mater., Vol. 5 (1970): 767-778.
[21]
Aid, A., Amrouche, A., Bachir Bouiadjra, B., Benguediab, M. and

Mesmacque, G. Fatigue Life Prediction under Variable Loading Based on a
New Damage Model. Materials and Design, Vol. 32 (2011): 183-191.
[22]
FPSO JIP Fatigue Capacity. Fatigue Test of Typical Weld Joints (A

Proposal of S-N Diagrams for Welded Ship Structure). Hyundai Heavy
Industries. Co., Ltd. (2000.4).
[23]
Lotsberg, I. and Landet, E. Fatigue Capacity of Side Longitudinals in

Floating Structures. OMAE-FPSO 2004, Houston, USA (2004).
[24]
Borgren, J. and Lopez Martinez, L. Spectrum Fatigue Testing and Residual

Stress Measurements on Non-Load Carrying Fillet Welded Test Specimens.
Fatigue under Spectrum Loading and Corrosive Environments, Warley, UK,
EMAS (1993).
[25]
Maddox, S.J. Fracture Mechanics Applied to Fatigue in Welded Structures.

Welding Institute Conference on Fatigue of Welded Structures, Brighton,
England (1970): 73-96.
[26]
Nitschke-Pagel, Th. Residual Stresses and Fatigue Behaviour of Welded

High Strength Steels. Diss. TU Braunschweig (1994).
[27]
Blom, A.F. Spectrum Fatigue Behaviour of Welded Joints. International

Journal of Fatigue, Vol. 17 (1995): 485-491.
[28]
Lopez Martinez, L. Lin, R., Want, D. and Blom, A.F. Investigation of

Residual Stresses in As-Welded and TIG-Dressed Specimens Subjected to
Static/Spectrum Loading. Proceedings of the North European Engineering
and Science Conference (NESC): Welded High-Strength Steel Structures,
Stockholm, Sweden (Edited by A.F. Blom), EMAS Publishing, London, UK
(1997).
[29]
Iida, K., Yamamoto, S. and Takanashi, M. Residual Stress Relaxation by

Reversed Loading. Welding in the World/le Soudage dans le Monde, Vol. 39
(1997): 138-144.
[30]
Iida, K. and Takanashi, M. Relaxation of Welding Residual Stresses by

Reversed and Repeated Loadings. Welding in the World/le Soudage dans le
Monde, Vol. 41 (1998): 138-144.
[31]
Takanashi, M., Kamata, K. and Kunihiro, I. Relaxation Behaviour of

Welding Residual Stresses by Fatigue Loading in smooth Longitudinal Butt
Welded Joints. Welding World, Vol. 44 (2000): 28-34.
[32]
Nitschke-Pagel, Th. and Wohlfahrt, H. Residual Stress Relaxation in Welded

High Strength Steels under Different Loading Conditions. Proceedings of
the 6th International Conference on Residual Stresses: ICRS-6, Oxford, UK
(2000): 1495-1502.
[33]
Lachmann, C., Nitschke-Pagel, Th. and Wohlfahrt, H. Characterisation of

Residual Stress Relaxation in Fatigue Loaded Welded Joints by X-Ray
Diffraction and Barkhausen Noise Method. ECRS 5, Proceedings of the 5th
European Conference on Residual Stresses, Delft-Noordwijkerhout, the
Netherlands, Material Science Forum, Vol. 47 (2000): 374-379.
[34]
Han, S.T. Lee and Shin, B. Residual Stress Relaxation of Welded Steel
Components under Cyclic Load. Material Technology, Vol. 73 (2002): 414420.
[35]
Dattoma, V., De Giorgi, M. and Nobile, R. Numerical Evaluation of

Residual Stress Relaxation by Cyclic Load. Journal of Strain Analysis for
Engineering Design, Vol. 39 (2004): 663-672.
[36]
Barsoum, Z. and Gustafsson, M. Spectrum Fatigue of High Strength Steel

Joints Welded with Low Temperature Transformation Consumables. 2nd
International Conference on Fatigue Design, Senlis, France (2007).
[37]
Farajian-Sohi, M., Nitschke-Pagel, Th. and Dilger, K. Residual Stress

Relaxation of Quasistatically and Cyclically Loaded Welded High Strength
Steels. XIII-2219-08 (2008).
[38]
Farajian, M., Nitschke-Pagel, Th. and Dilger, K. Mechanisms of Residual

Stress Relaxation and Redistribution in Welded High Strength Steel
Specimens under Mechanical Loading. XIII-2275-09 (2009).
[39]
Das, S. Exact Mapping of Residual Stress in Ship Hull Structures (First

Quarterly Report on Literature Review). SSC Project SR-1456 (2010).
[40]
Lorentzen, T. and Ibs, J.B. Neutron Diffraction Measurements of Residual

Strains in Offshore Welds. Material Science and Engineering A, Vol. A197
(1995): 209-214.
[41]
Gao, H., Guo, H., Blackburn, J.M. and Hendricks, R.W. Determination of
Residual Stress by X-Ray Diffraction in HSLA-100 Steel Weldments. Fifth
International Conference on Residual Stress, Linkoping, Sweden: Linkopings
Universitet (1997): 320-325.
[42]
Hu, S.Z. and Jiang, L. A Finite Element Simulation of the Test Procedure of
Stiffened Panels. Marine Structures, No. 11 (1998): 75-99.
[43]
Rrup, J. Mean Compressive Stresses Experimental and Theoretical

Investigations into their Influence on the Fatigue Strength of Welded
Structures. Journal of Strain Analysis for Engineering Design 40, No. 7
(2005): 631-642.
[44]
Ayala-Uraga, E. and Moan, T. Time-Variant Reliability Assessment of

FPSO Hull Girder with Long Cracks. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering 129 (May 2007): 81-89.
[45]
Bannantine, J.A., Comer, J.J. and Handrock, J.L. Fundamentals of Metal

Fatigue Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J. (1990).
[46]
Lee, Y-L. Fatigue Testing and Analysis: Theory and Practice. Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann, Amsterdam; Boston. (2005).
[47]
Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures. Recommended Practice DNVRP-C203. (April 2010).
[48]
Lotsberg, I. Assessment of Fatigue Capacity in the New Bulk Carrier and

Tanker Rules. Marine Structures, Vol. 19 (2006): 83-96.
SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE LIAISON MEMBERS

LIAISON MEMBERS
American Society of Naval Engineers
Captain Dennis K. Kruse (USN Ret.)
Bath Iron Works
Mr. Steve Tarpy
Colorado School of Mines
Dr. Stephen Liu
Edison Welding Institute
Mr. Rich Green
International Maritime Organization
Mr. Igor Ponomarev
Intl Ship and Offshore Structure Congress
Dr. Alaa Mansour
INTERTANKO
Mr. Dragos Rauta
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Memorial University of Newfoundland
Dr. M. R. Haddara
National Cargo Bureau
Captain Jim McNamara
National Transportation Safety Board - OMS
Dr. Jack Spencer
Office of Naval Research
Dr. Yapa Rajapaksie
Oil Companies International Maritime Forum
Mr. Phillip Murphy
Samsung Heavy Industries, Inc.
Dr. Satish Kumar
United States Coast Guard Academy
Commander Kurt Colella
United States Merchant Marine Academy
William Caliendo / Peter Web
United States Naval Academy
Dr. Ramswar Bhattacharyya
University of British Columbia
Dr. S. Calisal
University of California Berkeley
Dr. Robert Bea
Univ. of Houston - Composites Eng & Appl.
University of Maryland
Dr. Bilal Ayyub
University of Michigan
Dr. Michael Bernitsas
Virginia Polytechnic and State Institute
Dr. Alan Brown
Webb Institute
Prof. Roger Compton
RECENT SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE PUBLICATIONS

Ship Structure Committee Publications on the Web - All reports from SSC 1 to current are
available to be downloaded from the Ship Structure Committee Web Site at URL:
http://www.shipstructure.org
SSC 445 SSC 393 are available on the SSC CD-ROM Library. Visit the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) Web Site for ordering hard copies of all SSC research reports at
URL: http://www.ntis.gov
SSC Report Number
Report Bibliography
SSC 465
Predictive Modeling Impact of Ice on Ship and Offshore Structures

Bueno A. 2012
SSC 464
Design and Detailing for High Speed Aluminum Vessels Design Guide
and Training Mish, Wh Jr., Lynch T., Hesse E., Kulis J., Wilde J., Snyder
Z., Ruiz F. 2012
SSC 463
Marine Composites NDE, Inspection Techniques for Marine Composite

Construction Greene, E 2012
SSC 462
Review of Current Practices of Fracture Repair Procedures for Ship

Structures Wang, G, Khoo, E., ABS Corporate Technology 2012
SSC 461
Structural Challenges Faced By Arctic Ships, Kendrick A., Daley C.

2011
SSC 460
Effect of Welded Properties on Aluminum Structures, Sensharma P.,

Collette M., Harrington J. 2011
SSC 459
Reliability-Based Performance Assessment of Damaged Ships, Sun F.,

Pu Y., Chan H., Dow R.S., Shahid M., Das P.K. 2011
SSC 458
Exact Mapping of Residual Stress in Ship Hull Structures by Use of

Neutron Diffraction Das. S. Kenno S. 2009
SSC 457
Investigation of Plastic Limit States for Design of Ship Hull Structures,

Daley C., Hermanski G. 2009
SSC 456
Buckling Collapse Testing on Friction Stir Welded Aluminum Stiffened

Plate Structures, Paik J.K. 2009
SSC 455
Feasibility, Conceptual Design and Optimization of a Large Composite

Hybrid Hull, Braun D., Pejcic M. 2008
SSC 454
Ultimate Strength and Optimization of Aluminum Extrusions, Collette

M., Wang C. 2008
SSC 453
Welding Distortion Analysis Of Hull Blocks Using Equivalent Load

Method Based On Inherent Strain, Jang C.D. 2008
SSC 452
Aluminum Structure Design and Fabrication Guide, Sielski R.A. 2007

SSC 466 Mean Stress Assessment in Fatigue Analysis

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

SSC 466 Mean Stress Assessment in Fatigue Analysis

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

NTIS # PB2013-

This document has been approved

SHIP STRUCTURE COMMITTEE

Ship Structure Committee

RADM Thomas Eccles

Mr. H. Paul Cojeen

Mr. Todd Grove

Mr. Christopher McMahon

Ms. Julie Gascon

Mr. Kevin Baetsen

Dr. Neil Pegg

Mr. Jeffrey Lantz,

Mr. Eric C. Duncan

SHIP STRUCTURE SUB-COMMITTEE

DEFENCE RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT CANADA

MARITIME ADMINISTRATION (MARAD)

MILITARY SEALIFT COMMAND (MSC)

NAVY/ONR / NAVSEA/ NSWCCD

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

SOCIETY OF NAVAL ARCHITECTS AND MARINE

CAPT John Mauger

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

8. Performing Organization Report

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

10. Work Unit No. (TRIAS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

13. Type of Report and Period

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

17. Key Words

19. Security Classif. of this report

18. Distribution Statement

20. Security Classif. of this page

21. No. of pages

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

ORGANIZATION OF THIS DOCUMENT

Effect of mean stress on fatigue strength of small specimens and structural

EFFECT OF MEAN STRESS ON FATIGUE STRENGTH OF SMALL SPECIMENS AND

Figure 1: The specimen dimensions in [3]

Figure 2: Fatigue test results in [3]

Figure 3: Specimens tested in [4]

Figure 4: Fatigue test results for Type 1 specimens in [4]

Figure 5: Fatigue test results in [5]

Figure 6: Variable amplitude performance for pulsating compression in [5]

Figure 7: Specimens tested in [6,8-9]

Figure 8: Constant amplitude fatigue tests results in [6]

Figure 10: Fatigue test specimen in [10-11]

Figure 11: Applied stress ratio in [11]

Figure 15: Specimen dimensions in [12]

Figure 16: Dimensions of the welded specimens in [13]

Figure 17: Gaussian load spectrum with overloads applied in [13]

Fatigue Enhancement Factor (f(R))

walled components. Normal case for

Figure 19: Geometry of welded cruciform joint in [16]

Figure 22: Plate specimen design in [2]

Figure 23: Reduced scale welded panel design in [2]

Figure 26: Fatigue test results of the welded panels in [2]

Figure 27: Specimen geometry for stainless steel 304L in [19]

EFFECT OF MEAN STRESS ON FATIGUE STRENGTH OF SMALL SPECIMENS AND

Figure 29: Details of specimens in [22]

Table 2: Types of static pre-loads and mean stresses applied in [22]

Figure 30: Typical fatigue test results in [22]